New study suggests global warming could be mostly urban heat island
A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases
The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s IPCC likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century.
It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. While urban areas only account for less than four percent of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas.
For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects.
In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10 percent of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40 percent of the warming since 1850.
Source: Maps taken from NOAA Climate.gov.
The study also found that the IPCC’s chosen estimate of solar activity appeared to have prematurely ruled out a substantial role for the Sun in the observed warming.
When the authors analysed the temperature data only using the IPCC’s solar dataset, they could not explain any of the warming since the mid-20th century. That is, they replicated the IPCC’s iconic finding that global warming is mostly human-caused.
However, when the authors repeated the analysis using a different estimate of solar activity – one that is often used by the scientific community – they found that most of the warming and cooling trends of the rural data could actually be explained in terms of changing solar activity.
The lead author of the study, Dr. Willie Soon, of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-Science.com) described the implications of their findings,
“For many years, the general public has been [told] that the science on climate change is settled. This new study shows that this is not the case.”
Another author of the study, Prof. Ana Elias, the Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina, explained:
“This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.”
This study finds similar conclusions to another study that was recently published in a separate scientific peer-reviewed journal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics.
This other study involved many of the same co-authors (led by Dr. Ronan Connolly, also at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences).
It took a different approach to analysing the causes of ‘climate change’ – using an additional 25 estimates of solar activity and three extra temperature estimates.
See more here ceres-science.com
Header image: Go Smart Bricks
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
Isn’t it all the important ones that are heat island by design?
Reply
Barry Havenga
| #
Why am I not surprised?
Reply
Alan
| #
F1 racing gives a good idea about how the location of temperature measurements. They are concerned about track temperatures because of tyre performance. I don’t remember the exact temperatures at the Monza race but the track was around 40C and the air temperature about 30C. I don’t know where and at what height the air temperature was measures but it show how easy it is to deceive people.
Reply